Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Sat Apr 25, 2026 16:17

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 39 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 10, 2008 21:03 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 20:41
Posts: 7
jomukuk wrote:
And then you get the ones who drive above the limit and change lanes between cameras.


That won't help. Every SPECs camera covers all lanes and it makes no difference which lane you drive in. There are three lane motorways with only two cameras on the columns. Are you suggesting that driving in the no camera lane would avoid a ticket? In fact, only ONE camera is needed to cover all lanes. If they didn't, you would only need to constantly change lanes between cameras to avoid a ticket, which would make no sense. There are now SPECs columns on the southern end of the M1 which seem to indicate a permanent installation is in progress.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 10, 2008 23:33 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 00:01
Posts: 2258
Location: South Wales
Well, supposedly the SPECS system cant deal with lane changes, so if you change lanes between cameras it can't track you.

No idea if it's true or not, I've not personally tried it, but it's been widely publicised so people are going to try it.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 00:01 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 18:17
Posts: 794
Location: Reading
b€€jay wrote:
jomukuk wrote:
And then you get the ones who drive above the limit and change lanes between cameras.


That won't help. Every SPECs camera covers all lanes and it makes no difference which lane you drive in.

:welcome:

...but I'm afraid you're wrong. :)

I'm absolutely sure that each camera only covers one lane. If you see a set of two cameras on a three-lane motorway, only two of the three lanes are covered. So yes, one can avoid a ticket by driving in the non-camera lane...but I don't know of any way of telling which lane that might be. (Although I'm sure I read something on here that said that a SPECS camera over L1 was allowed to point at L1, and possibly L2, but definitely not L3, because the angle was too great or something.)

Additionally, each single-lane camera is only paired with one other single-lane camera. So as long as one knows which cameras (if any) are dummies (sometimes you can deduce it, and I gave an example of that in my original post), one can avoid a ticket by changing lanes between each pair of live cameras. This is governed by the SPECS type approval, rather than by software or hardware limitations, so we would know if it changed.

There is a caveat. The lane-changing "trick" does assume that both cameras of each pair are in the same lane. I don't believe the scammers are obliged by the type approval to do this, so in theory, they could have (for example) the first camera in L1 and the second in L2, instead of having both cameras in L1 (or L2). However the consensus seems to be that they wouldn't bother, because then they'd miss out on catching all the drivers staying in L1 between the two cameras, and all the drivers staying in L2. And we're all painfully aware of just how many drivers stay in the same lane mile after mile (and SPECS tends to make that effect, along with a host of other problems, even worse). So they'd make much less money that way, not that it's even slightly about revenue of course. :roll:

Lane-changing does work though. A friend tells me that he'd have a fair number of points by now (almost certainly a record) if it didn't. He recommends that anyone wanting (hypothetically) to try it should do it at a lowish speed, have a lot of points to play with, wait at least 3 weeks before trying it again, and not take any chances as to which cameras are live and which are dummies (basically, if there are more possibly live sets of cameras than there are lanes, it's not worth it). He doesn't see any problem with carefully exceeding a 40mph or 50mph "roadworks" limit on the motorway in the middle of the night when there are no workmen, very few other vehicles and (sometimes) no narrowed lanes; compare that to countless miles of single-carriageway NSL.

This information is in no way endorsed by Safe Speed, and any cycling forum trolls reading this should get a life and think about campaigning for real road safety rather than spiteful anti-motorist measures which actually increase accidents.

_________________
Paul Smith: a legend.

"The freedom provided by the motor vehicle is not universally applauded, however: there are those who resent the loss of state control over individual choice that the car represents. Such people rarely admit their prejudices openly; instead, they make false or exaggerated claims about the adverse effects of road transport in order to justify calls for higher taxation or restrictions on mobility." (Conservative Way Forward: Stop The War Against Drivers)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 00:52 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 20:41
Posts: 7
Bombus
You first and last post seem to contradict each other. Either cameras cover one lane or they don't!
The cameras read the numberplate. The information is stored until the number plate is read again when the time is computed against the (known) distance giving the speed. It doesn't matter which camera of the one, two or three on a column records the number, the computation is not carried out in the cameras but at a single source linked to all the cameras. Do you really think that lane switching would not be taken into consideration?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 01:05 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 23:09
Posts: 6737
Location: Stockport, Cheshire
b€€jay wrote:
The cameras read the numberplate. The information is stored until the number plate is read again when the time is computed against the (known) distance giving the speed. It doesn't matter which camera of the one, two or three on a column records the number, the computation is not carried out in the cameras but at a single source linked to all the cameras. Do you really think that lane switching would not be taken into consideration?

Do you have any source for this information?

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 01:16 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 11:05
Posts: 1044
Location: Hillingdon
On page 105 of the ACPO Code of Practice for Operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Technology, we find the following...

Quote:
Device
Speed Violation Detection Deterrent

Date Approved for Use
Approved from 1 April 1999

Manufacturer or Agent
Speed Check Services,
Deterrent (SVDD) Buchanan House,
24-30 Holborn,
London
EC1N 2LX
Tel: 0207 870 9357

Operating Modes
Automatic unattended mode and secondary check.

Operating Criteria
Single lane enforcement. One pair of close up entry and exit cameras and one wide angle colour exit camera covering the same enforcement lane which must be the lane immediately below or either of the lanes adjacent to it. Camera height between 5.4m and 8.1m. Minimum measurement distance 200m.

Approaching traffic only

Control and recording at the site only


Read and inwardly digest the italicised part of the operating criteria... This seems to make it quite clear that each camera can monitor one lane and one lane only, and if there are no cameras above the lane you're in, or above the lane immediately to the left or right of it, then you're not being monitored. It also seems to corroborate the idea that lane-switching can be used as a means of avoiding detection.

_________________
Chris


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 07:26 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 18:17
Posts: 794
Location: Reading
b€€jay wrote:
Bombus
You first and last post seem to contradict each other. Either cameras cover one lane or they don't!

This is what I said in my first post:

bombus wrote:
SPECS are only type-approved for single-lane enforcement

Each camera covers one lane, and I never said otherwise. Each camera point (consisting of one or more cameras) can of course cover more than one lane in total, but that doesn't contradict anything else that I've written. All it means is that more than one camera is used in any one place; each single camera can still only be paired with one other camera.

And by "paired" I don't mean two cameras at the same point somehow being linked together, I just mean two single cameras at different points which together do single-lane enforcement. So if Camera A is paired with Camera B a mile later, and they are both covering L1, a driver passing under Camera A and Camera B (and staying in L1) would have their average speed between the two cameras taken. That's all I ever meant by "paired". SPECS is a surprisingly crude and simple system considering how much it costs.

b€€jay wrote:
The cameras read the numberplate. The information is stored until the number plate is read again when the time is computed against the (known) distance giving the speed. It doesn't matter which camera of the one, two or three on a column records the number, the computation is not carried out in the cameras but at a single source linked to all the cameras. Do you really think that lane switching would not be taken into consideration?

Yes, I do. I am absolutely certain of it, and anyone reading this topic should be absolutely clear that lane-changing works. The Home Office and the SPECS manufacturer have even confirmed that it works in news stories (like this one and this one), and asked drivers not to do it (maybe drivers would be a bit happier to oblige if they hadn't been systematically bullied and scammed by SCPs for the last 8 years or so, but anyway). It could be a massive, very organised conspiracy to lie to us and catch us out, but it would have to be very organised indeed, implausibly so, and besides, what of my friend who has successfully applied the lane-changing technique to at least two separate SPECS systems? (Oh, and of course the Home Office would never lie to us.... :roll:)

Like PeterE, I would like a source for your information, as I have never heard anything like it from anywhere reliable before. In fact, I don't mean to be rude or to stop you posting here, but you are most definitely wrong, and you may well have been told what you think by some camera supporter who wishes to spread disinformation in an effort to confuse and distract motorists (thereby showing how much they really care about road safety, but we knew that already).

_________________
Paul Smith: a legend.

"The freedom provided by the motor vehicle is not universally applauded, however: there are those who resent the loss of state control over individual choice that the car represents. Such people rarely admit their prejudices openly; instead, they make false or exaggerated claims about the adverse effects of road transport in order to justify calls for higher taxation or restrictions on mobility." (Conservative Way Forward: Stop The War Against Drivers)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 23:34 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 20:41
Posts: 7
Evidentally, you have very fixed views. In view of the fact it seems that anyone not concurring with your views is anti camera despite me not giving any personal opinion I shall desist from posting. BTW "not meaning to be rude" then being so and "not wishing to stop you posting" is acting like a spoiled child.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 23:45 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 13:55
Posts: 2247
Location: middlish
b€€jay wrote:
Evidentally, you have very fixed views. In view of the fact it seems that anyone not concurring with your views is anti camera despite me not giving any personal opinion I shall desist from posting. BTW "not meaning to be rude" then being so and "not wishing to stop you posting" is acting like a spoiled child.


hmmm come along now.. if you're going to enter this kind of debate you really need to be able to back yourself up.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 00:28 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 18:17
Posts: 794
Location: Reading
b€€jay wrote:
Evidentally, you have very fixed views. In view of the fact it seems that anyone not concurring with your views is anti camera despite me not giving any personal opinion I shall desist from posting. BTW "not meaning to be rude" then being so and "not wishing to stop you posting" is acting like a spoiled child.

<Yawn>

Bye then.

_________________
Paul Smith: a legend.

"The freedom provided by the motor vehicle is not universally applauded, however: there are those who resent the loss of state control over individual choice that the car represents. Such people rarely admit their prejudices openly; instead, they make false or exaggerated claims about the adverse effects of road transport in order to justify calls for higher taxation or restrictions on mobility." (Conservative Way Forward: Stop The War Against Drivers)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 10:08 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 19:50
Posts: 3369
Location: Lost in the Wilderness
b€€jay,

There were many articles covering this topic and, here is just one of them.

Quote:
Drivers can avoid speeding tickets...by changing lanes
Last updated at 23:07pm on 15.10.06

A massive flaw in a new generation of speed cameras means motorists can avoid fines and points on their licence simply by changing lanes.

The Home Office admitted last night that drivers can avoid being caught the by hi-tech 'SPECS' cameras which calculate a car's average speed over a long distance.

The astonishing loophole means that millions of speeding drivers around Britain could escape a £60 fine and three points on their licence. The hidden blind-spot - revealed today by the Daily Mail - raises questions about the supposedly foolproof hi-tech camera system which is increasingly used on Britain's roads.

Although designed to improve road safety, the loophole means that drivers may actually increase the risk of accidents by continually switching lanes.

Police chiefs were last night forced to urge drivers not to exploit the shortcoming by trying to evade the cameras.

The flaw affects the controversial SPECS cameras. Unlike standard Gatso cameras which individually flash a car as it passes, these cameras measure a driver's average speed between two fixed points - which can be many miles apart.

If this average speed between cameras is higher than the speed limit, the driver gets a fine through the post and three points on their licence.

The cameras were designed to catch motorists who simply slow down in front of a camera, and then drive above the speed limit until they reach the next one.

But, under Home Office rules governing the camera equipment, prosecutions are only valid if a driver is filmed in the same lane at the start and finish of each section by a linked pair of cameras.

The Home Office admitted yesterday that the hi-tech SPECS cameras - produced by Camberley-based Speed Check Services - are only approved to be used one lane at a time.

That means a three-lane motorway would require three separate sets of cameras - one for each lane. If drivers leave the speed-camera zone via a different lane to the one they entered in, they cannot normally be prosecuted.

The camera's manufacturers - Speed Check Services (SCS) - confirmed that drivers could escape prosecution by lane-hopping but discouraged it on 'safety' grounds.

Sets of the cameras have been installed at 27 sites around the UK at a cost of between £180,000 and £1.5 million per site, according to Geoff Collins, SCS's sales and marketing manager.

Fourteen of the sites are permanent while another 13 are temporary at road works, where their presence has mushroomed in recent years. Sites that run for longer distances cost more because they need more cameras.

They include permanent cameras around Nottingham, a 20mph zone around Tower Bridge in London, the M8 between Edinburgh and Glasgow, and at roadworks on the M6 in the West Midlands, the M25, the A1(M) and the M1 in Hertfordshire, the A2 in Kent, and the M56 in Cheshire.

The SPECS cameras work by measuring the time a vehicle takes to pass between two number plate reading cameras set up to 6.2 miles apart.

A computer works out the time it takes to cover the distance, and then calculates the average speed.

If this is higher than the speed limit, a colour photograph taken by a third digital camera is stored for enforcement purposes. Multiple sets of the cameras are installed on stretches of road to make 'enforcement zones'.

But under Home Office 'type approval' rules, each individual set cannot be linked to any of the others. So cars are timed only between sets of number plate readers 'paired' for the same lane.

Most of the time each number plate reader in a pair will be directed at the same single lane of traffic and will therefore not detect lane hoppers, according to Mr Collins. He said:' If it's configured to monitor one particular lane, then it wouldn't pick up a lane changer.'

He added: 'There are configurations when (a speeding vehicle) would not be picked up, if it's gone from lane one to lane three between cameras.'

The company's technical director Graeme Southwood said that when the devices were approved by the Home Office in 1999, they passed strict tests for use in one lane at a time. But there was not enough time or finances to extend Home office approval tests to cover the cameras' use over two or three lanes at a time. This has created the loop-hole.

He still claimed - without spelling out any detail - that this loop-hole was not actually foolproof and that some of those who attempt to use it will still face a speeding prosecution.

And Med Hughes, head of roads policing for the Association of Chief Police Officers, said it would be 'irresponsible' and dangerous for drivers to change lanes in a bid to avoid detection - adding that motorists would 'not be able to guarantee' they could avoid being penalised if they changed lanes.

Mr Hughes, Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police, said: 'Motorists who change lanes in average speed detection lanes, such as major road works, will not be able to guarantee avoiding detection. Multiple enforcement systems are often used and detection zones will vary depending on the placement of the equipment.'

'Motorists are strongly advised not to seek to evade detection by unnecessarily changing lanes as this would generate a greater risk of collision and may lead to other offences being committed which the police may prosecute.

'These camera systems are designed to make our roads safer by reducing speed and casualties. It is irresponsible for motorists to deliberately seek to evade detection and speed.'

A spokeswoman for the Home Office said: 'The manufacturers applied for the camera to be type-approved to measure one lane only. It has been type-approved for this use - this can be either the lane under the camera or a lane to either side of it.'

'A SPECS camera measures a vehicles speed over distance in one lane.'

Motoring groups say police are putting too much reliance on cash-raising speed cameras which can fine a driver a few miles above the speed limit - but are unable to spot a dangerous, drunk, uninsured, or untaxed driver in an unroadworthy or stolen vehicle who is driving under the speed limit.

Last year more than 2 million motorists were caught speeding on camera, raising £120m a year in revenue for so-called 'Safety Camera Partnerships' comprising police, magistrates councils and road safety groups.

Speed cameras have boomed on British roads from a handful a decade ago to 3,300 fixed sites and 3,400 mobile devices today. At the same time there has been an 11 per cent cut in police patrols.

Edmund King, director of the RAC Foundation, said: 'I think the danger might be that you get people playing Russian Roulette and nipping from one lane to another to lessen their odds of being caught. They won't know entirely but they might think there's more chance.'

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 15, 2008 14:40 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 20:41
Posts: 7
Using facts quoted by others i.e. extract from ACPO Code of Practice
"Operating Criteria
Single lane enforcement. One pair of close up entry and exit cameras and one wide angle colour exit camera covering the same enforcement lane which must be the lane immediately below or either of the lanes adjacent to it. Camera height between 5.4m and 8.1m. Minimum measurement distance 200m. "

Most motorway cameras are on columns situated at the back edge of the hard shoulder. How can these conform to the requirements? Only gantry mounted cameras would do that. Or have the requirements (dated 1999) been amended? Or ignored?

So, these cameras, looking across the motorway at an oblique angle, have all lanes in the line of sight. How many lanes are recorded?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 15, 2008 17:50 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 11:05
Posts: 1044
Location: Hillingdon
b€€jay wrote:
Most motorway cameras are on columns situated at the back edge of the hard shoulder. How can these conform to the requirements? Only gantry mounted cameras would do that. Or have the requirements (dated 1999) been amended? Or ignored?


The vertical column might be to the left of the hard shoulder, but I've never seen a SPECS setup where the cameras were then mounted directly above that column - they ALL have a (more or less) horizontal crossbar sticking out over part of the carriageway adjacent to the column, and it's THAT crossbar onto which the cameras are installed. Therefore the requirements are being met - each camera is installed above a lane or immediately adjacent to one, so if you have a crossbar which spans the hard shoulder and L1, and you have two cameras on that crossbar (as in the current setup on the M4 mentioned earlier in this thread), one of which is over the hard shoulder and one which is over L1, you can monitor traffic in any two of the hard shoulder, L1 or L2, but you absolutely cannot monitor traffic to the right of L2...

...although the thought has just occurred to me, given your comment about columns vs gantries - are you mistaking regular column-mounted motorway surveillance cameras for SPECS setups? SPECS installations are VERY distinguishable by the nature of the camera housings themselves (a boxy central casing for the camera, with smaller IR illuminators mounted either side) as well as in most cases the extremely obvious SPECS logo (some people liken it to the Motorola logo, to which it bears more than a passing resemblance) cut into the bracket between the vertical column and the crossbar. The column/crossbar is usually painted either yellow or blue, with the camera housings always (in my experience) painted yellow. This Google Images link ought to give you a bunch of examples on the first page of results...

_________________
Chris


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 15, 2008 18:53 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 13:55
Posts: 2247
Location: middlish
just taken in the m69 contraflow which has 2 lanes running each direction.

at one end of the zone there is a single camera mounted over L1, L3 merging into 2 shortly after. presumeably then if you stay in L3 it's not supposed to clock you.

at the other end there's one gantry over L1 with one camera covering the exit zone... and one pointing across L2 to effectively L3 & 4 in the opposite direction!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 16, 2008 18:31 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 20:41
Posts: 7
I am aware of the difference between SPECs, Trafficmaster and other street furniture. None of the cameras mounted on hard shoulder columns are over the carriageway on my patch, the M1, J6 to J10, And couldn't be, it will be five lanes wide. And yes, they are working and they do NOT comply, so I repeat, has then Code been updated or just ignored?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 16, 2008 19:33 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 13:55
Posts: 2247
Location: middlish
b€€jay wrote:
so I repeat, has then Code been updated or just ignored?


probably just ignored.
what % of people are likely to know about them ? or challenge their ticket on a technicality ?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 17, 2008 01:41 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 11:05
Posts: 1044
Location: Hillingdon
b€€jay wrote:
None of the cameras mounted on hard shoulder columns are over the carriageway on my patch, the M1, J6 to J10, And couldn't be, it will be five lanes wide.


Are you saying that none of the cameras are positioned above or adjacent to a live lane?

_________________
Chris


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 23:09 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 20:41
Posts: 7
Twister wrote:
b€€jay wrote:
None of the cameras mounted on hard shoulder columns are over the carriageway on my patch, the M1, J6 to J10, And couldn't be, it will be five lanes wide.


Are you saying that none of the cameras are positioned above or adjacent to a live lane?


At the moment, no. Some of the columns are more than two lanes away from the running lanes. Even when the roadworks are finished, with columns at the back of the hard shoulder, only lane 1 , (and possibly, lane 2), of five lanes would be "covered". Some columns appear to be permanent installations and part of the new carriageway system, others are temporary as contraflow lanes change. I don't know whether there will be a permanent set up when the works are finished but there are some new, permanent installations between J4 & J6 beyond the roadworks. A similar set up exists on the A2 roadworks between the M25 and the M2.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 16:37 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 11:05
Posts: 1044
Location: Hillingdon
b€€jay wrote:
At the moment, no. Some of the columns are more than two lanes away from the running lanes.


And at the moment, do you know that NIPs are still being sent out as a result of images captured by any of the cameras so situated? If you do, then it would indeed suggest that the rules have been changed or are being ignored...

Quote:
Some columns appear to be permanent installations and part of the new carriageway system, others are temporary as contraflow lanes change. I don't know whether there will be a permanent set up when the works are finished but there are some new, permanent installations between J4 & J6 beyond the roadworks.


Most motorway SPECS setups I've seen have looked as if they could be permanent, but once the associated roadworks were finished there was little or no evidence left to suggest they were ever there. Could the ones you've seen between J4-6 be related to the work in the J1-4 area?

_________________
Chris


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 39 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 88 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You can post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.086s | 11 Queries | GZIP : Off ]